Protecting the Sahel and beyond: How safeguarding against corruption could make the Great Green Wall a reality

Limited transparency in the governance of the GGWI has raised concerns about accountability and access to information.

Although GGWI transparency policies exist, they are mostly unpublished and lack detail, and there is no disclosure about the actual procedures to access information or the types of documents that can be accessed. There is also no information available on the procedures to appeal the non-disclosure of information.

The UNCCD GGWI and the PAAGGW websites also provide very limited information, while decentralised project financing processes further hamper public access to information, and key financial documents are not publicly available.

Despite these challenges, there have been recent strides in information sharing. An online multi-purpose platform being developed to present GGWI information holds promise, but the extent of public access to the platform’s contents remains uncertain.

To address these transparency gaps, we recommend the PAAGGW prioritise:

• The launch of the multi-purpose online platform, ensuring that key data on project funding is made accessible to the public.

• Publish all relevant policy, financial, technical and achievement documents on its website in both French and English.

• Publish an annual report that provides a detailed account of the project’s implementation status and financial allocations. We further recommend all national GGWI agencies do the same.

The GGWI faces challenges ensuring the meaningful participation and engagement of civil society organisations (CSO’s) and grassroot communities. Existing frameworks to encourage participation are informal and lack clarity.

To address these issues, the GGWI has outlined priorities in its Decennial Priority Investment Plan (DPIP) for 2021-2030. These priorities aim to improve local ownership, reduce social conflicts and foster collaboration. The plan also includes direction to establish support centres for resilient local development and strengthen relationships and exchanges between communities.

There are also ongoing initiatives in place. These include the establishment of national coalitions, the annual GGW Youth Green Caravan and Forum, as well as plans for a Women's Green Platform that will feature sessions and activities at both national and regional levels.

Regardless, significant gaps remain in actively facilitating and encouraging participation across the GGWI. To enhance stakeholder and community participation, we recommend that the PAAGGW:

• Consider formalising the consultative role of CSOs in decision-making processes, such as through participation in technical committees and board meetings.

• Create clear criteria and procedures for engagement and define this at local and national levels. National agencies should develop a participation framework to ensure local communities’ involvement in planning and implementation.

• The states belonging to the GGWI should establish national coalitions of state and non-state actors, utilising the support of the GGW Accelerator and Integrated Sustainable Development Units to guide GGWI strategy and implementation.

The GGWI significantly lacks enforceable accountability mechanisms and integrity measures. Decision-making processes lack universal frameworks, and no official accountability documents – such as annual reports – are published.

Insufficient reporting has led to serious credibility issues and reduced funding, and monitoring and evaluation systems are fragmented - with various mechanisms involving a mixture of government bodies, national agencies and donors.

The PAAGGW’s governance and ethics charter lacks detail and anti-corruption mechanisms, which puts whistleblowers at serious risk.

To address these issues, we propose the PAAGGW:

• Strengthen and institutionalise a transparent monitoring and evaluation system and publish annual impact reports.

• Develop a code of conduct, and a conflict-of-interest policy for PAAGGW staff.

• Establish accessible complaints mechanisms and whistleblowing protection policies based on global standards.

The large size and fragmented nature of the initiative has created inconsistencies and a lack of clarification regarding roles and responsibilities.

This not only tends to slow progress and create confusion around responsibilities but increases the likelihood of funds being mismanaged.

To ensure clarity in working relationships and implementation across the GGWI, we recommend that:

• The working relationship between the AU and PAAGGW be clarified.

• The AU establish the necessary structures for the GGWI, or merge them with the PAAGGW, to avoid having multiple levels of actors. To ensure that the PAAGGW and the GGWI are managed effectively and consistently, the organisation’s general secretariat needs to have enough staff to be responsible for accountability.

• States belonging to the GGWI should have a stronger ownership of it and show a clear alignment with their respective national policies, as well as activating multi-stakeholder national coalitions that include civil society actors.

• GGWI partners should fast-track a planned institutional and organisation audit of the PAAGGW and act on its recommendations. A transitional strategy should be established to join the GGW Accelerator and the PAAGGW, which should be treated as an opportunity to enhance participation.

• Donors to enhance their coordination and avoid overlapping programming or competition for funding from different governments, CSOs or national agencies. Donors should also learn from previously funded projects and prioritise investing in the governance of the GGWI.